DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Will streaming kill physical media?

Chris Gould takes a look at the current state of streaming vs physical media...

Over the past few months it seems like more and more people from various backgrounds have been making the argument that physical media is 'dead' and that streaming is the new king. As someone whose collection consists of thousands of pieces of physical media across a variety of formats I have my own views on this subject. In light of this I thought it might be interesting to put forth the current state of streaming vs disc-based formats as I see it, hopefully to spark some debate and see where our readers stand on the matter.

Firstly it's fair to say that I'm not completely without bias in this argument. I've written for DVDActive for over ten years and I've seen DVD grow from its relative infancy to evolve into the dominant home entertainment format. I've also witnessed the emergence of Blu-ray, which has since gone on to become the format of choice for hardcore film enthusiasts and technical geeks. Both of these are physical formats and I love them. However, I also use a streaming service (Netflix) for the convenience of a quick fix, so I'm not some dinosaur completely opposed to on-demand services.

The convenience angle seems to be one of the biggest arguments made in favour of streaming services, so let's begin there. While my exposure to streaming is limited to the aforementioned Netflix I must agree that it's nice to be able to turn on the PC, PS3, BD player or tablet and browse a selection of movies and TV shows. There's no waiting around for the postman, nor any trips to the rental store to contend with. If I decide I want to watch something at two o'clock in the morning I simply fire up one of my devices and away I go. By comparison physical media is a positive chore. If I want to watch something new I have to plan ahead and pray that the postal system has its act together this week. If I want to watch something new in the early hours of the morning it means getting of off my lazy behind and driving miles to the nearest twenty-four hour supermarket and hoping they have something suitable in store, which obviously isn't an ideal situation. Another convenient feature of streaming is that it doesn't require any form of storage at the end-user's home. You can simply select your film, watch it, and then move on to the next one without the need to convert the spare bedroom into a display area for your collection of optical media. As someone whose house is stuffed to the gills with DVDs, Blu-rays and games, I can see why this is an attractive option for many. No, I don't think anyone can seriously make a convincing argument for physical media's convenience over streaming services, but what about selection?

Streaming services are great for a quick fix when you don't particularly mind what you watch, but what if you have a strong desire to see the latest movies or some obscure foreign film? While Netflix actually has a surprisingly good selection of foreign and obscure films they don't rotate all that often and are of course just a tiny sample of what is available. Recently I was astounded to find Galaxy of Terror in HD on Netflix, and in the past I've even watched the 'classics' Robot Jox and Buckaroo Banzai, along with some fairly recent Japanese and Korean features. However, if I wanted to watch something like Mr. Vampire or The Beastmaster I'd be out of luck. Even big name titles such as the Star Wars and Harry Potter sagas, and classics such as The Godfather and Jaws are conspicuous by their absence from the streaming services. From looking at the Lovefilm catalogue it appears as if they might offer some films that Netflix do not (and vice versa), but even if you were to sign up to multiple streaming services you still wouldn't have access to everything that physical media offers. Of course this could change in the future if the market shifts firmly towards the digital distribution model, but at the moment disc-based distribution has the edge in this area.

So you have your content, but what about the quality of said content? As things stand physical media is, for my money, head and shoulders above of streaming. From what I've been able to learn, Netflix still has the edge in the quality stakes over its main rival (Lovefilm) when it comes to streaming. Lovefilm's site claims that 1080p streams are currently only available on PCs, with other devices only supporting 720p. The bandwidth required for these streams is also higher than Netflix (but more on this point later). Netflix has recently overhauled its service to offer Super HD versions of some titles, but this is ISP dependant and many people are still left with the regular 1080p streams or below (although it seems frivolous to complain about such things). Although the quality of these streams is impressive compared to standard definition and even broadcast HD, it's simply not up to the standard of the average Blu-ray equivalent.

On this page I've included a number of comparisons between Netflix HD streams and the Blu-ray equivalents. Now I'll admit that the Netflix streams are actually quite impressive, especially if you're a casual viewer who views entertainment as a disposable commodity. As a film and home-theatre enthusiast I sometimes forget that not everyone shares my obsession and as such aren't really concerned with things like grain, colour reproduction, or artefacts. However, for people like me the advantages of physical media are obvious. In each of the comparisons on the page the Blu-ray version of the film is sharper and more detailed, with superior colour and contrast for a 'film-like' appearance. Then of course there's the audio. Some of Netflix's streams offer Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio, which is good, but still not as good as the higher-fidelity lossless audio found on Blu-ray. Additionally, a large number of Blu-ray discs are now releasing with 7.1 audio, something that streaming services do not yet offer. Extras are another plus for physical media, especially those that offer genuine insight into the filmmaking process. It seems to me that, while streaming isn't a million miles behind, if you want the very best quality you'll have to stick with those shiny Blu-ray discs until such time as the on-demand services catch up. Of course as the popularity of MP3 has shown sometimes quality just isn't the overriding factor in people's purchasing decisions.

This leads me neatly on to my next point, that of on-demand content delivery. For me this is the single biggest obstacle facing the mass-adoption of streaming services. I'm lucky enough to live in an area that offers cable broadband at speeds of up to 100Mbps (soon to be 120Mbps), but even I suffer from the dreaded buffering and drop-outs during periods of high network utilisation. It's all well and good advertising these high speed services, but bandwidth is finite and at peak times even the fastest networks can buckle under the strain. Of course this high speed doesn't come cheap either, with my service weighing in at £35 per month. Sure you can opt for a lower tier service, but these usually come with more restrictive bandwidth caps and when you consider that streaming an HD film can consume 2-3GB of data every hour it's not hard to see how you could go over your allowance. In some cases this only leads to a temporary reduction in speed - a minor annoyance to be sure - but in others it could lead to additional charges or the loss of Internet entirely. As more and more people sign up to streaming services the strain on the infrastructure is only going to get worse, so some serious investment is needed before everyone will be able to watch on-demand content at anything approaching Blu-ray quality. In many areas (particularly rural) people's only option is still ADSL down old copper phone lines, which simply doesn't offer anything like the bandwidth for current services let alone future developments. 4K is apparently the next 'big thing' and that will require even more bandwidth than today's HD content. No, the UK is still a long way from having the sort of broadband infrastructure that can support streaming as the number one delivery method, and I suspect this is true of many countries.

As an adjunct of the above point, I work in IT and in my experience the majority of people are scared to death of technology. Granted younger people are more conversant in such things, but I'm frequently amazed by how many twenty-somethings exhibit almost no aptitude for even the most basic of technical tasks (and don't even get me started on the 'we should go back to pen and pencil' brigade). When such individuals are ill at ease with concepts like inserting a disc into a drive - something that confuses people more often than you'd think - it's hard to imagine them coping when faced with the prospect of navigating an intangible library of movies on an 'alien' device. Of course these people were probably just as scared of VHS and DVD and will eventually learn the necessary skills, but I find suggestions that we are currently living in an age when everyone is comfortable streaming or downloading their entertainment highly dubious.

Another factor that is often overlooked is people's innate desire to hold something tangible in their hands; to build a library of films. Even as someone who owns what others might call an excessive number of DVDs and Blu-rays the current Steelbook craze bemuses me, but there are obviously people out there who are keen collectors and as such are creating the demand for that particular market. There's definitely a psychological component to the accumulation of material goods, and I always get more of a rush from receiving a Blu-ray in the post than I do from streaming or downloading a film. To me there's more inherent worth in the physical object than there is in the digital equivalent, which feels largely disposable by comparison. Of course I'm the sort of person who used to buy vinyl instead of CDs...

There are no doubt other arguments to consider on both sides, but if I went into that much depth this article would never end. So, to avoid droning on incessantly, here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of both delivery systems:

Streaming pros:

Convenience

Relatively low cost

Acceptable quality (not the best, but 'good is good enough' for some)

Streaming cons:

Quality inferior to physical media

Heavily reliant on broadband availability and performance

Use requires 'retraining'

Limited selection

Physical media pros:

Offers the best quality

People like to own something tangible (collectors)

Not reliant on broadband speed, bandwidth or continuity

Physical media cons:

Require physical storage space

Can break/otherwise corrupt

Higher costs

Some hardware compatibility issues

Again I'd like to emphasis that this is how I see the current state of streaming vs physical media. Your views and opinions could differ wildly from mine depending on your usage habits and preferences and ultimately this is what will drive the market. If enough people chose the convenience of streaming over the technical superiority of physical media that is where the industry will go. Of course the upshot could well be that such a move will force content makers to provide better quality streaming services that match, or even exceed the quality currently afforded by Blu-ray. So to answer the question posed by the title of this article, yes, streaming may eventually 'kill' mass-market physical media. However, I believe we're a long way off from that yet and even if it does come to pass there will still be a market for physical media of some sort, even if it is relatively small. Perhaps we'll end up with something akin to the vinyl market today. What do you think?

* Note: The images on this page were captured from Netflix HD streams and the equivalent Blu-rays for comparison purposes. Each of the films currently feature in the UK Netflix site's 'popular' section and represent a cross-section of films old and new.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

"I can see streaming is the future - it seems to me to be the next step in the evolution."

YES - "it is the future" ... of TV. YES - "It is the next step in the evolution" ... of TV.

WTF do you think that has got to do with hardcopies?

It is two different markets. Always were. Will remain.

TV does not compete with hardcopies, timed or steamed transmissions makes no difference except in the quality of the service offered - for TV watchers.

Only hype and people who actually cannot tell the difference between TV and hardcopies (because they never cared in the first place) would be naive enough to suspect otherwise.

* The cheapest way to watch a movie more than twice is by buying a hardcopy. * The only way to be sure you still have a movie in two years is a hardcopy. * The best quality is obtained by buying a hardcopy. * Hardcopies do not require maintenance and back-ups. You own it - problem solved.

The hardcopy market originally was for people who wanted to own their stuff. It still is. It will remain so.

I know people who use streaming. They haven't stopped buying hardcopies of what they really like, or what their kids really like. Streaming replaces impulse purchases and physical rental.

Streaming or downloads HAS not replaced anything else. It CANNOT replace anything else. It therefore WILL not replace anything else.

(Games and pop music fads don't last. Movies and serious music do. There is no comparison there. Show me a person who will skip hardcopy ownership of Genesis albums or Kubrick movies, and I will show you a person who doesn't really care for the stuff anyway.)

Streaming will replace hardcopies like public benches will replace home furniture.

For me I still prefer physical media due to the quality and reliability. I didn't buy high end media gear just to put up with poor compressed sound tracks and 720p (Yes, I know you can get better picture quality streaming but alot aren't). MP3's are still the very poor cousin of a CD track quality wise. Here in Australia the internet is still catching up - a lot of houses will not have the speed required for high end streaming. I can see streaming is the future - it seems to me to be the next step in the evolution.

The only problem is when you store things on a hard drive this can also lead to loss of movies when it fails. I have had a couple of hard drives fail and reliability is a concern - especially for example if I were to lose all my digital pictures. I have 2 back-up hard drives that I plug into a dock to ensure all things on my PC are backed up in case of failure - ensuring that the afore mentioned hard drives are electrically safe in case of voltage surges, etc. We would be devastated if we lost all out photos.

a) "who is really the self-proclaimed "futurology experts"?" You are. You keep telling us that teens won't like physical coopies ten years from now. And your "I honestly believe that" is only rhetoric in that context.

b) "I'm still waiting for any proper sources. Niels Ole sounds familiar. I have also read a book once, it was my own diary from when I was 13 years old. Do you know anyone who is about 13 today? If you do, do you think that person has ever tried to use a VHS- or Cassette tape, or do you think many 13 years old has any interest in listing to music on CD's today?"

No, I did'nt think you would know Niels Ole. He is a professor in the topic we are discussing. As you might hvae found out, google is invented actually. And your comparison sucks; it is you, not I who lean upon wiews at a 13-years old maturity level.

As for 13-years olds today I know a lot, and they all have hardcopies of anything they really like. Do YOU know any 13 year olds (apart from yourself)?

c) "Try being a bit more condescending that's usually the easiest way to win an online debate, either that or calling the other guy a Nazi."

Look who's talking. But yes, no medium has ever replaced another, and people haven't been satisfied with "downloaded" or "taped" copies of transmissions ever before, so the idea that they will suddenly be *is* ridiculous.

d) "Considering how strong you obviously feel about this matter, how you feel the need to comfort the worried people, and how there is no reasoning with you at all, maybe it's really just you who are afraid of a digital future? I for once are embracing it and the possibility of it to happen."

You are not embracing, you are proclaiming (the superiority of your own prefrence).

My predictions of the future are based on the theory that people will remain basically people. That has nothing to do with lottery numbers.

And no, I do not fear a digital future, and neither do I fear that people will stop wanting ohysical ownership of the stuff they like.

You ARE making predictions, and they are based on disregarding the fact that a sufficient number of people want hardcopies for the simple reason that they are stable and easily kepttu ensure a broad and lasting makret.

This IS ridiculous, it is the same, old same old superstitions of all the people who went before you saying this will stop that.

But I can see that you will not stop saying "hardcopies will disappear" until time has proved you wrong in a decade or so (or will you ever agree that a remaining large market is not just the last death throes?).

P.S.

Graversen

e) "Right, so you still consider VHS and cassette tapes well used media?"

You are either deliberately misunderstanding me you you are more stupid than I have given you credit for.

f) "Speaking of common sense, you need to either have been raised by monkeys or born before 1940 to actually worry that the development of media will have any kind of profoundly negative effect on your life.

Moron!

g)"Considering "preffered" is in simple past I guess you mean "People has always preffered hardcopies". If people in general prefers something, it must mean that more than half of all people prefers it, or in other words the majority."

Not surprisingly, your analysis is wrong - although it could have been right if the sentence stood alone and wasn't part of a larger context.

The sentence "People always preferred hardcopies." is called an enthymeme in linguistics: I omitted the obvious part saying "when it is something they actually like and regard as having lasting value". This simplified form of communication where one does not repeat that which is obvious and already clearly stated, is directed at people who can think, read, and understand arguments. I momentarily forgot I was talking to you, too.

But you make a good point in showing that you disregard context when attempting to construct arguments.

AsgerH wrote: Graversen it is actually you who think you can predict the future; you rushed in to support the ridiculous notion that just because a new form of transmission has been invented [..] Funny, I always end up writing: "I honestly believe that..." While you indirectly but very strongly are saying: "This is how it's gonna be...". I'm at least admitting that I'm only trying to predict the future, while you have already seen it, so who is really the self-proclaimed "futurology experts"? Also, could you maybe tell me the LOTTO-numbers for next week?

AsgerH wrote: It is okay to like streaming and non-physical copies as you obviously do, but it is plain dumb to think that just because you and many others do then everyboy else will follow.

It is also plain dumb to think that human behavior will change to a general disinterest in physical copies. So my views are ridiculous, dumb, and plain dumb? Try being a bit more condescending that's usually the easiest way to win an online debate, either that or calling the other guy a Nazi.

AsgerH wrote: You can argue all you want, but you are in the same boat as all the other people who wrongfully predicted the end of other media because of new technologies or distribution methods. Right, so you still consider VHS and cassette tapes well used media?

AsgerH wrote: I think the perspectives I have shared are helpful for the people who are worried by self-proclaimed "futurology experts" saying that their beloved hardcopies might go away to tell them, that never before has a new medium done anything but ultimately take up it's own niche and thereby also made the qualities and attractions of the alternatives more clear. My arguments are for them, and their peace of mind. Speaking of common sense, you need to either have been raised by monkeys or born before 1940 to actually worry that the development of media will have any kind of profoundly negative effect on your life.

AsgerH wrote: But my arguments are based on solid media research, e.g. by Niels Ole Finnemann, as well as common sense. I'm still waiting for any proper sources. Niels Ole sounds familiar. I have also read a book once, it was my own diary from when I was 13 years old. Do you know anyone who is about 13 today? If you do, do you think that person has ever tried to use a VHS- or Cassette tape, or do you think many 13 years old has any interest in listing to music on CD's today?

Teens and lately also tweens (age 8-14) has a great spending power and therefore also influence on entertainment media. Now lets skip 10 year into the future, do you think a lot of the 13 years old in 2023 has any interest in DVD's or blu-rays, or whatever physical media movies are sold on? I don't think so.

I guess if your generation could live forever, the physical media would also strive forever, but when kids are growing up with MP3's on their mobile phones, buying games on App Store and Steam, and watching movies on Netflix. I don't think it will take that many generations before both kids and grownups don't have any relation or interest in the inconveniences of physical media, other than the nostalgia feeling.

AsgerH wrote: People always preferred hardcopies. Considering "preffered" is in simple past I guess you mean "People has always preffered hardcopies". If people in general prefers something, it must mean that more than half of all people prefers it, or in other words the majority.

Now I have already linked to statistics that proves that more than 50 % of all PC-games was sold digitally back in 2010, and it has only gone in one direction since. And there is really no point in proving where people prefers to buy and receive software (programs & apps) in general.

eBooks popularity is also going up with extreme speed. Just consider how many Book Stores and Blockbuster stores has closed over the years. It just seems like digital media is taking over every single physical media: http://googlelogo.org/physical-media-like-book-...

Considering how strong you obviously feel about this matter, how you feel the need to comfort the worried people, and how there is no reasoning with you at all, maybe it's really just you who are afraid of a digital future? I for once are embracing it and the possibility of it to happen.

I started to embrace digital media last year when a couple of the iTunes digital copies supplied with my Blu-rays surprisingly turned out to be in 1080p HD.

My current collection of physical media is just short of 500 and I'm fast running out of space so I decided on a new approach. I invested in a couple of hard drives (2 and 3 TB) and an Apple TV (which for the uninitiated is a small set-top box about the size of a double-CD case). I've now also signed up for fibre-optic broadband, which has recently come to my area, so you'd think I have the ideal set-up.

A two-hour movie is roughly around 5 GB and on a good day will take around 20 minutes to download. Having now bought around 30 of them from iTunes, I believe that although there are some drawbacks that need addressing, digital downloads will eventually reach parity with physical media.

Some pros and cons. The picture quality at 1080p is impressive: the differences are marginal and you'd have to be close to the TV and know what you're looking for to spot them. The sound on the other hand is still Dolby Digital 5.1. iTunes Extras are now more frequently being bundled with new titles; these contain either a sample of what's on the Blu-ray or replicate them completely. Subtitles are currently a hit-or-miss affair depending on the studio. There appears to be a three-tier pricing structure: old catalogue (£6.99), recent catalogue (£9.99) or new (£13.99). Some new titles are given a digital early release.

The convenience and portability are where digital wins out over Blu-ray. So long as the computer is fired up with iTunes running, I can stream to mobile, iPod, iPad or main TV, or store on the smaller devices if I want. I'm finding more and more that if I have both a physical and digital copy of a film, it's just more convenient to wake the Apple TV and select it instead of hunting out the Blu-ray, loading the player, waiting for the menu, etc.

So now I have a kind of split approach. If it's a film I really, really like that will get repeated viewings, I'll buy the Blu-ray and probably a HD digital copy as well for portability (if it doesn't come with it). If it's an okay-ish film that's worth watching then it's digital-only. This has cut down on Blu-ray purchases considerably but still offers me the best of both worlds.

Graversen it is actually you who think you can predict the future; you rushed in to support the ridiculous notion that just because a new form of transmission has been invented, then the billions of people who prefer tangible ownership will just give it up to such an extent, that physical media will disappear or at least become an arbitrary niche market on par with vinyl LPs.

But in answert to your question: "But I will say this; considering how fast the digital media has evolved over the past 30 years, do you honestly think that you can predict humans relations to physical media in the next 30 years?"

Then: Yes indeed, it is fairly easy to predict that the vast market for physical copies, which serves the one in ten (or twenty .. or fifty, doesn't really matter, that's still 14.000.000 people if it's only one in fifty) persons who like something so much that they aren't completely uninterested in securing continued access and ownership, will remain in existence and doing exactly so.

It is okay to like streaming and non-physical copies as you obviously do, but it is plain dumb to think that just because you and many others do then everyboy else will follow.

It is also plain dumb to think that human behavior will change to a general disinterest in physical copies. Your own examples do not serve to support your theory - YOUR theory - about the future. You just prove that hardcopies still sell quite well, even with games, despite the fact that games are extremely more teansient the mivies, music, etc. I might add that every game that has marketed DLCs (downloadeble extra content) as addons ultimately are released in hardcopy gold editions including everything. Now why do you think the business still does that when there is no future for hardcopies and nobody really wants them anyway?

You are taking a trend and disregarding the entire context. I am basing the safe bet that hardcopies will remain in demand on human behaviour.

You can argue all you want, but you are in the same boat as all the other people who wrongfully predicted the end of other media because of new technologies or distribution methods. They were invariably wrong, and it is both safe and easy to predict that you will be, too.

I have had this discussion elsewhere recently, and it is getting tiresome to discuss with people who cannot see beyond an immediate statistical curve. But my arguments are based on solid media research, e.g. by Niels Ole Finnemann, as well as common sense.

I think the perspectives I have shared are helpful for the people who are worried by self-proclaimed "futurology experts" saying that their beloved hardcopies might go away to tell them, that never before has a new medium done anything but ultimately take up it's own niche and thereby also made the qualities and attractions of the alternatives more clear. My arguments are for them, and their peace of mind.

I certainly haven't contributed in order to argue with you or anyone else who cannot see the consequences of the facts that billions buy hardcopies, and that nobody ever would have in the first place, if transmissions or "homemade" storing were enough for them.

You think the future of how humans will use digital media is designed solely by the technical developments in the area of transmissions. I think it will be designed by humans, and human behaviour, which (not solely but to a very large extent) favors personal ownership and access to anything the individual truly feels anything for.

You have nothing to show for arguments, except statistics which actually only prove that hardcopies still sell quite well. I have human behaviour and media history.

Chris Gould wrote: I have to ask you two questions about that: in what quality, and have you been doing it legally?

Just to be clear, when I write "for the past decade" I don't mean 2000 - 2010, but 2003 - 2013. That's technically not grammatically incorrect, but i guess it's uncommon.

When it comes to games: I have never been a fan of modern Single Players (with a few exceptions). I more or less only played a few competitive games like Counter-Strike, Quake 3 and WarCraft 3 in that time period, and even tho I often format my Windows-pc, I just copied their game folders and skipped the reason for reinstalling them. I actually also remember making ISO-images of some of my games. I know that still required using a CD-copy, but it was the only mean of buying the games. I still only stored them digitally.

Lets just say that I only ripped my own movies and music. The quality back then was horrible compared to today's ripping standard. But if you take a new and proper 1080p BluRay rip (8,75 GB), with 1500 kbps 5.1 DTS sound and 9000 kbps x264 image, the difference in quality is not big compared to a original Blu-ray copy. It's at least no where near as bad as the ones you took from Netflix.

I might be mistaken, but isn't it very difficult to change the compression algorithm on Blu-rays? It just seems way easier to constantly optimize it with online services. I think we are gonna see some impressive optimizing of streamed video quality with the coming H.265 standard.

Don't get my wrong, I'm a huge fan of the brilliant quality of blu-rays and I even own a HTPC with a blu-ray slot, but I actually only own 1 blu-ray film, which is "Inglourious Basterds".

Beside from the fact that I prefer the convenience of digital distribution, I also only own a 37" TV and I have a home-made ambillight that sadly dosen't work with the direct input from blu-ray discs. See: http://youtu.be/_YNfwBC3ClA

AsgerH wrote: So you are one who don't really see the idea with hardcopies in the first place. That is perfectly okay, but the reason for hardcopies has always been that there are people who DO prefer them, and not just in the way that a minority prefers LPs. And as already argued, we still make a large market, especially today on global scale.

Sorry, but I don't really see any reason for arguing with you, cause you have already seen the future and that's apparently how it's going to be.

But I will say this; considering how fast the digital media has evolved over the past 30 years, do you honestly think that you can predict humans relations to physical media in the next 30 years?

More or less anything can happen, and it's extremely difficult to predict, because we have never had a digital storage and distribution media like the one we have today. Disregarding how I use media and considering the statistics, I still honestly believe that digital distribution and storage is the next big media for entertainment.

I'm sure we will get a physical 4K media soon and properly also another new physical movie media after that, but the shorter and shorter time periods between the releases of these physical media also indicates, that the need for a more flexible solution is inevitable.

Graversen wrote: I might just be having a very hard time understanding why people in general still prefers physical medias. I have been storing all of my music, all of my pc games, and most of my movies digitally at least for the past decade. I have to ask you two questions about that: in what quality, and have you been doing it legally?

I only ask because I was an early Internet adopter and an early broadband adopter, and ten years ago there weren't any legal services that offered anything like the choice offered by physical media. Digital Copies were unheard of, so if one wanted to store something digitally you did it by either ripping a copy of something you already owned (physical media) or you downloaded it illegally. That went for pretty much all forms of entertainment, but especially films and games. Steam wan't released until 2003 and that was the early model for digital distribution, yet it featured only a handful of titles. The same is true of films. Music was in a slightly better position, but it wasn't until the (relatively) mass adoption of high-speed Internet that legal downloading became popular. Even so, it was 2005 before downloads overtook sales of hard copies in the UK.

Graversen, at least you now admit that physical copies will never die.

But your argument that I am wrong sepcifically uses data saying that there is still a huge market for hardcopies, and goes on to compare hardcopies in general with LPs. The first proves that it is you who are wrong, and the second proves that you are missing the major points:

1) Digital copies sell more than physical copies. So what? People also watch more TV than they buy physical copies, and that isn't news. Your own statistics prove that the market for physical copies is huge, and that is the point I am stressing.

Your THEORY is that digital copies will take over and reduce hardcopies to a small niche. But if this was true, then cassette taping of music and video would already have reduced hardcopies into an obscure niche market a gazillion years ago.

2) Your comparison with LPs is way off the mark. LPs are for purists specifically - and that is a niche purist market at that, because there are also purists who prefer digital hardcopies.

But hardcopies are for anyone who preferes any of the following a) better quality AND/OR b) tangible ownership, AND/OR c) ease of maintenance, AND/OR d) investing in unlimited enjoyment rather than paying per view, AND/OR e) independency of accounts and connectivity, AND/OR f) ensruring continued access to their stuff, which will never be guarantted with downloads or streaming offers.

With that in mind don't even think to tell me that you truly believe that "fans" of, say, Star Wars or Star Trek - or Pink Floyd, or Wagner, or Stanley kubrick - or a gazillion other items when you thik of it - will ever be satisfied not to own their own copies.

Hardcopies sold, even in inferior quality, when people could just have taped their music, shows, and movies.

They still sell. They will keep on doing so, and in sufficient number that anything popular will be offered in hardcopies. And I am not talking mainstream oly. Considering a global market, then indie productions, and cult status stuff will also remain in hardcopy circulation.

The digital copies market is covering the quick fixes for the people who want quick fixes, and it covers nothing else. Streaming and digital copies are a brilliant solution for this part of the market, hence the rocket takeoff.

Where you go wrong is in looking only at a statistical curve, and not thinking about the original reasons and market for hardcopies. You might as well say that since there is an increasing number of tuberculosis cases the entire world population will die off in the next decade except for a few people on remote islands.

You MAY be right about that, or about the fate of hardcopies, but either case is extremely unlikely for the simple reason that nothing similar has ever happened.

But hardcopies were, are, and remain the solution for anyboy who for whatever reason say "I want this to be mine to keep". THIS was the original market that hardcopies were targeted at, at that originally has nothing to do with VHS or LPs.

And THAT makes me one hundred percent right that people always wanted hardcopies. I am not saying ALL people, and i didn't in my previous submission either. The majority never cared in the first place (so if that was an argument, then we are back to "I am right" because then there would never have been a hardcopy market in the first place.

The hardcopy market, however, is NOT just a market for nerds, quality freaks or collectors, it is for anybody - ANYBODY - who "also wants to enjoy this stuff next year".

Random sales will drop beause of streaming and download offers, hence a natural decrease in the hardcopy market. But the decrease will flatten rapidly in the next few years, and the same stuff that went out as hardcopies will do so still.

Your comparison to LPs is only relevant in an historical perspective: At the time when LPs were stated of the art, they were produced and sold, despite the fact that many people would be satisfied with taping their music, and despite the fact that popular music could be heard frequently on the radio. LPs were the hard copies of their time, and they were produced and sold - without being a niche market at all - despite the fact that most people were neither purists nor collectors, and were perfectly satisfied with radio and tapes.

BTW regarding your previuous observation about games: 1) The majority still prefer single player games. The impression you may get of the opposite is caused by hype - just as the "streaming is the future" predictions are hype. 2) Games get old in a more profound way than music and movies. 3) Lots of people hate Steam and Battlenet. 4) People who make good offers for offline singleplayers like "Dragon Age" make good money - and so will the people who for that very reason continue to offer hardcopies of anything of lasting interest.

Graversen, one more comment:

"I might just be having a very hard time understanding why people in general still prefers physical medias. I have been storing all of my music, all of my pc games, and most of my movies digitally at least for the past decade."

So you are one who don't really see the idea with hardcopies in the first place. That is perfectly okay, but the reason for hardcopies has always been that there are people who DO prefer them, and not just in the way that a minority prefers LPs. And as already argued, we still make a large market, especially today on global scale.

And that was back in mid-2010, but console games are for obvious reasons still very big in their physical format.

I'm also over exaggerating to make a point. I get that the physical movie media will most likely never die, but it will eventually end up as big of a deal as LP's is today.

You could argue, that LP's was replace with another physical media (which actually diminished the sound quality), but I honestly believe that the digital format is the next big media for movies.

I might just be having a very hard time understanding why people in general still prefers physical medias. I have been storing all of my music, all of my pc games, and most of my movies digitally at least for the past decade.

"This reminds me of a famous quote: "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." "

It sure does, but in the opposite way. Streaming is on the rise, yes. This gives physical SHOPS (not copies) a hard time, yes. Video also gave cinemas a hard time. that something is on the rise and at a certain cost for another market does not mean the end of said other market.

Many people don't car efor or cannot distinguish higher vs. lower quality. Also true. But then why didn't taping og video and music kill hardcopies.

Simple: Hardcopies are stable, easy to administrate, easy to find, must not be backer up constantly, and they cost very little more than streaming or downlads.

People always preferred hardcopies.

the problem with the "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." was that it only looked at present trends,. the problem with the "Everything will become digital streaming and downloads" s exactly the same. it impies that humans will suddenly stop buyng the stuff they really like simply because of a new form of transmissions.

This reminds me of a famous quote: "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."

If you look at the markets development over the past few years, there is a clear indication of a transfer from physical to digital media.

If we look isolated on arguments like "It's nice to own tangible thinks", you should really consider how popular services like Steam and Blizzards online store is. They have really proven that most people prefer convenience and low costs over a tangible collection.

You could argue that games are different than movies, because games are downloaded and not streamed in a worse quality, but isn't that just a solution to low/unstable internet connections and getting access to a better digital quality of movies?

In Denmark we already have access to streaming services like ViaPlay.com, where HD movies can be downloaded to our tv-box and watched in a better quality than possible with streaming. I know that’s not as convenient as streaming the movie right away, but it still beats waiting up to several days for the mailman or going to your local store.

If you also consider the progress of faster and more stable internet connections like fiber, as well as the progress of more efficient compression algorithms, like the new H.265 that delivers up to twice as good a quality as H.264. I really don't think we are far from a milestone where digital media can match physical media in quality.

For some, the obvious argument for the future would then be: That with a rising demand for better quality like 4K, the physical media will always be a step ahead of the digital ones. That’s only kind of true, cause 4K is nothing but a higher resolution, and at the moment you need to sit very close to a 50" Full HD TV to be able to distinguish between the pixels.

If you for example sit 2 meter from a 50" Full HD TV and you have a regular 20/20 vision, then you can barely distinguish the pixels. In comparison, if you sit 4-5 meter from a 50" TV you will most likely not be able to distinguish between a 720p and a 1080p resolution. Considering the fact, that not that many people even owns a 50" TV, then how big do you think the chances are of a mainstream breakthrough of 4K in the near future? I know that the average size of consumers TV are constantly growing, but it will still take years before the mainstream audience has any need for 4K. I would much more prefer a better quality of current resolution with e.g. OLED. Source: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction...

Arguments like streaming doesn't include special features and commentaries is most likely just a matter of time, cause why should they not be able to include that with digital solutions? Streaming services are still quite new and experimental.

People often has a tendency to fear that everything will change overnight, especially when we are talking about intangible technology, but it will of course take up to 5 years, maybe even up to 10 years, before the digital media has completely replace the physical ones.

I'm a huge movie fan, but I can't afford a big home cinema setup, so even though I love the quality of Blu-rays I don't really need it, so my next pc and HTPC will be without an optical slot and my (not that impressive) physical collection of games, DVD's and Blu-rays are going to the basement/attic when I move later this year.

I don't think Physical Copies won't go away. Digital copies will stay and it will never go away. I like my stuff on physical format even though I have some material in digital format (I barely redeemed any of my digital copies of movies I own).

The main source of entertainment was and has long been and will remain transmissions ... of which streaming is just the latest version. It is better and more flexible than conventional TV (although you have to pay per view or download), wherefore it kills a) physical rental (few people would prefer going to a rental store, pay for a scratched and dirty disc, and additionally have to go once more and deliver it back), and b) mainstream stores offering new hardcopies and cheap offers for spontaneuos buyers in need of a quick fix.

BUT: When people had VCRs they bought movies instead of just taping them. They contiued doeing so after harddisc recorders entered the market. Star Trek fans, for instance, have upgraded their collections a number of times (I am one of them). fans of any director, any movie or any TV show have bought hardcopies.

Why - because they WANT a tangible product that does not depend on accounts and connections, and which doesn't lie somewhere "out there" (until such time as it doesn't) but sits safely, stably, and permanently in their (our) shelves.

Now, streaming - even if you actually download - is not a keepsake. Even if you purchase a downloadable product, you will have to back it up, copy it repeatedly, and overall you will only have it in an intangible (and possibly messy) digital library. That is not really "having it".

People who prefer this (digital libraries convenieltly stacked away from sight) certainly exist. They are the same people who preferred just watching TV because they simply werent fans and didn't care sufficiently for the show/movie/whatever to want a copy on their shelves in the first place. If or when they bought movies it was just for entertainment right now, and they would be actually annoyed at having the physical "relic" afterwards.

Streaming kicks away the random hardcopy market, and moves the very large remaining one there still is out on a global market primarily served by online shops.

But in the end, streaming also serves to stress the difference ... between "lets see a movie shall we" quick fixes, and tangible I-own-it-and-it-is-ready-for-me-always-and-whenever-I-want, it has superior quality, and "when I saw it the third time I started saving money" hardcopies.

When photography was invented people predicted the end of painting as an artform. When public libraries opened people predicted the end of books. When cinema was invented people predicted the end of theater. When home video was invented people predicted the end of cinema. And now that we have streaming people predict the end of hardcopies.

All these people are alike: The want to sound like futurology experts and end up looking like fools. Every single time a new medium has appeared it has lead to a crisis for the medium it looked like the most - but ultimately it has just served to establish a clearer picture of what the original medium can do that the new cannot. This is why people still visit theaters and cinemas, and why hardcopies will never go out of fashion. Not all people want to live a Feng Shui life, anyway :-)

Streaming is just a new form of transmission that does replace some of the market ofr hardcopies, but not the original core, that were and will remain the reason for hardcopies. And I'm not talking die hard fans only. Anyone who likes anything enough to see it thrice or more is better off with a hardcopy, and anybody knows that.

As a final example look at e-books. Are they replacing the market? No, they are creating more readers. And those who, having read a really good book in the train, want to reread it and truly enjoy it ... will most often purchase a hardcopy. Scott Siglers (naive sci-fi splatterpunk) novels are available for free as podcasts. Yet they are in print and sold.

Can you imagine why?

e-books presently sell more than physical books. So what? Physical books sell better than ever. Because there are more readers.

Saying: Digital copies create a wider audience, and will ultimately serve to ensure an improved hardcopy market, specializing in better quality for anyone who wants or likes something beyond "here and now" ... is correct.

I originally got sick of hearing the "streaming-will-replace-physical-you-name-it-yakketi-yak"-talk. Now, I just shake my head at it. Those people are just like superstitious peasants at the marketpklace, and time will prove them wrong.

I don't use iTunes. Never have. Does Apple even offer an Internet streaming service for film and TV? The content provider isn't particularly important in the context of this article though. The focus is the delivery mechanism and quality of the content. Even if I'd included all of the major streaming platforms that still wouldn't have have covered anything like what's available in physical form. I only used Netflix as an example as it's a service I'm familiar with.

Great write-up, but I think you left out a huge piece of the puzzle. And that's iTunes. Netflix is amazing, don't get me wrong, but it's very lacking to not include iTunes in a discussion like this. If Netflix doesn't have a title available, you can be sure iTunes will have it. I still buy Blu-rays, but more and more I will rent a movie for $5 on iTunes. If it's a movie I know I will watch multiple times a year, I will buy the Blu-ray.

Regarding the 'cloud' aspect of buying our films, to quote a film character, 'once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny'. Whichever cloud content provider you use, it would seem you are locked into them. Firstly, you need them (the cloud content provider) to exist to enable you to even watch a film that you apparently own in the first place. You have to also hope they don't go bust or get taken over by a 'larger fish' who might impose additional costs and conditions that you don't agree with.

This isn't the case with physical media. While your personal collection won't be as vast as a content provider, you can at least watch whatever it is that you own, regardless of the distributor or where you happened to purchase it.

As an aside on the subject of choice, content providers can bang on all they like about the 1000's of films they have available but so what? Are we not discerning creatures? We have personal collections. We don't just hoover up any and all c**p that happens to be out there. Do we?

If I want to see a film, I buy it. Perhaps 1% of the time, I buy something that I end up not caring for and end up selling or trading it. As others have pointed out though, you can't do that with cloud copies.

Secondly, you have to maintain a subscription. If you cancel the subscription for whatever reason, (be it financial or geographical) you've lost the collection you've been building up in the cloud. In the world of physical media, it would be like having to have a Blu Ray player hooked up to the internet by default, buying a Fox title (for example), bringing it home and having to still pay Fox a monthly subscription to unlock the film you just bought. And If you cancel the subscription, congratulations, you are now the proud owner of a vast coaster collection. That's pretty much how I see it with buying films digitally at the moment. Am I mis-informed?

Take iTunes for instance, I look at what they charge for a digital copy of a new release and just think to myself, why would I pay that to watch it on my phone or laptop. I don't have the means to send it to my TV and even if I did, I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of it. I'd still rather pay a few extra quid for the physical equivalent. To get it on BD with perhaps the option of a DVD and/or digital copy thrown in for the price. Yes, you are paying slightly more but you're also getting more for your money. Better AV quality, better extras etc. And you own it. You're not beholden to any 3rd party who 'will let' you watch your own movie for an additional cost.

I accept that this is purely from my own narrow perspective and that others may prefer the newer ways of consuming media (I hate that term) but that's all it's good for in my opinion. The indiscriminate consuming of 'stuff'. Like a basking shark hoovering up plankton. Doesn't care what it tastes like. Taste is irrelevant. 'Lets just have more of that stuff that we're told we'll like. There's loads of it'.

This has been a topic with a friend of mine. He's a stream subscriber, he doe Netflix too - for the stuff that's not available. I can say he streams LOT more than he gets inside his mailbox. The quality is okay. I've watched a couple stuff from the line. The problem is he doesn't want too get cluttered, while he does like to own physical media (DVDs/Blu-Rays/CDs), he only get the stuff he absolutely enjoys. And he is concerned about the future of basically leasing everything (online). I am troubled by that.

bass88 wrote: I really wish we could live in a world where both formats could co-exist without one trying to wipe the other out.

I do agree whole wholeheartedly - so many of the extras on Blu really can fit on DVD, but they're being fueled by trolls and greed over their investment. But that's a different rant.

What I'm waiting for is the "Green" shoe to drop, big time.

Studios pushing streaming services as being Green - good for the environment, no waste. Save the planet, just buy a cloud copy. The same way we see TV ads trying to put peer pressure on people paying with cash - buy it with your Chase Card. Or more recently trying to shame people who own older flip cell phones (not an ad).

EddieP362 pretty much summed it up, "instant gratification". My friend (same one) is handicaped, he spends much of his time online. He spoke to me about a situation involving an Gen-Yer. His airbook had lost wi-fi and he couldn't watch his clould movie. The guy had a fit since he thought the movies he bought WERE IN his computer. Now you could say this fellow is stupid. But remember reports of people who were hit by hurricane Sandy who have always used smart phones. They could NOT use a landline, pay phone. WTF? Now multiply that number by a few millions.

The same thing goes for those T-Mobile ads; stream your entire music collection from the cloud. Makes me wonder too. How many believe they have the music inside their phones. It's hard not to give credence; turn it on and the music is right there.

Man, I wish I was making it up; for a lot of people sitting in front of TV is a chore. Watch it on your tablet or cell or portable player is becoming the norm for many. I keep going to adult film star, Kayden Kross. She had a video podcast, movie reviews (her co-host was a comic), it was entertaining. But the thing that got on my nerves was Kayden's constants checking; EVERY minute looking at her new Tweets. She has a hard time to turning her phone off. This is the new America - 'I'm about the now and having it two minutes ago'.

I read comments from Ain't It Cool News from people who moan about a news post being a couple hours later than a competitor. For crying out load! Why does it have to be this have very second or it's not important? Patiences should not be a lost art.

flicster wrote: Once you buy something that way [cloud], it pretty much loses all it's monetary value.

That's the other things that worries me. You really can't transfer ownership. What happens if that service dies? You lost your media... and money. Hell, that happened to Disney movie stream service. It closed down a month or so ago.

I remember years back when the record studios were vexed because people could sell their used CDs - they wanted a cut. They actually were trying to get lawmakers involved. I'm glad it failed, but that whole situation is now sealed tight with cloud.

Look at it this way, millions live online, be it through video games, cell phones, portable players or computers. A gripe I'm hearing from another friend is you MUST have internet access to play bought video games - even if your intention is single player. This is everyday, it's not normal NOT to have access. Or that so called doctor who warned people to stay away from folks who don't Facebook (they're not right in the head). Really??? *sigh*

I feel like a dinosaur. The lambs have taken over the herd, marching towards a cliff, merriment and Tweets. How can they NOT understand what's is on the horizon? Do they even care? An anchor of civilization is ownership, not a privilege, but genuine.

I'll stick to my physical media, but as I wrote... a dinosaur. It sadden me, but I do see a future where discs are a relic. 'I'm saving the environment and helping the economy!'

My thing is I dont HAVE to have(own) every movie. My problem is this, with netflix. If a movie is unavailable on dvd then it should be up for streaming or vise versa or both. I just hate when I have to search all over just to watch a movie. I like several movies of several genres and that can be a problem

Well, given that this a DVD/Blu-ray review site obviously most people (including myself) will choose physical over streaming.

Like the rest of you, my main reasons are superior quality and extras, I love extras.

Also, more from the collector's POV, I love having the physical stuff, plus, I'm a graphic designer so I absolutely love nice packaging and having pretty stuff on my shelves (c'mon, the Tarantino XX boxset, anyone?). Hell, sometimes I just open the boxes just to look at em.

The only "con" I see for Blu-rays now is the fact that when 4k resolution discs hit the market I'll be tempted to start replacing my collection, but that's a whole other story.

My main issue with it is the way content is sold to the streaming services. Streaming service X has exclusive rights to studio Y's collection for Z years, which is on device A, B but not C - even though C is supported by the service.

So, it's similar to premium TV, with different services offering different packages. There's also a tier above for more premium titles, which is offered by yet more competitors, sometimes as a package, sometimes on a per title.

I use streaming video the same way I used Blockbuster or going to the movies... to see if I like it. If I like it enough--whether or not it's available on Netflix or Amazon VOD--I'll buy the Blu-Ray or DVD.

Big budget, new release titles aren't in any danger of going away from physical disc any time soon, but the studios' deeper back catalog titles are going to drift more and more to VOD services rather than be released on physical discs, something that is is already happening and has been going on for a few years now. There tons of DVD catalog titles that have gone out-of-print over the past few years, yet are available on services such as Netflix, Vudu, etc., and many such titles that have never been released on DVD never will be. The only hope for these catalog titles are the smaller, independent distributors such as Shout! Factory, Criterion and Blue Underground taking a chance and licensing them for release or they happen to work into the marketing strategy of another current film.

It might sound silly but aside from the obvious advantages like higher quality, I just love the act of collecting movies. With digital content it isn't the same. Digital licensing just can't compete with knowing a certain movie is on my shelf and waiting for me whenever I want to watch it.

I just love having an actual disc. I also want to point out special features too. While DVDS and even blurays are getting slimmer, its still nice to have them. I havent read the entire artcile yet but I wanted to mention that.

Finally, someone else is talking about streaming's dirty little secret, bandwidth. I live in LA, which is crowded but seems to have a pretty advanced internet speed capability, and I pay a decent amount for my 15MB cable internet connection. I can stream a lot of HD content with that, but still get buffering notices or knocked down to SD quality on occasion when I stream during peak hours.

Furthermore, when I am on the go, data limits on my mobile phone/devices make streaming prohibitive and any public wi-fi I find is horrifically slow. The streaming people want you to believe that because they stream it, you have access to it as if you own it, but the reality is, you are tied to internet and bandwidth that you don't always have.

Physical media will always have its place. Yes, convenience for convenience's sake is the biggest fault of our culture of instant gratification, but I still favor quality over convenience. Yeah, the time it takes to boot up the disc when you insert a Blu-Ray into your player is annoying a bit, but once that thing starts playing, you'll realize that it was worth the wait.

streaming is great for renting, especially these days with video stores dying off. in fact, outside of corner stores that might do it, i can honestly say there arent any more video stores in my city. the last left was Rogers (canada's equivalent of Blockbuster) and they recently killed their home video leg of the company. and of course Blockbuster is all but gone from most of the country.

but on a personal level, i can't see buying a movie online. if i wanna own a movie then i buy the physical disc. and i see even the "average movie viewers" in my life the same way. despite how big blu-ray now is...i can count on one hand how many people i know in my life who have moved up to that. everyone else is still riding the dvd wagon or just arent movie buying types.

some people bring up music and MP3s but there's a big difference there. music is something you listen to, something many carry around. so it makes sense that MP3s have gotten so big and mainstream. you dont wanna hold a million CDs when you're out and about. now sure we can watch movies on our phones and tablets these days but most people like to watch them on their tvs. so the need or desire to have a digital only copy isn't as popular or wanted. sure it may be convenient for trips or whatnot but overall people wanna sit on the couch and watch their movies on a nice tv, not a small screen.

and its evident the average viewer doesnt care about tech and "better picture/sound" since blu-ray hasnt killed dvd at all and its still striving. so if dvd is surviving through all this, i cant see the digital/streaming option ever taking over....at most it'll just live alongside.

not to mention many people have the option and ability to stream but dont because they just dont understand how or are afraid of the tech or some simply dont care. the internet always makes the minorities seem bigger than they are when it comes to this sorta stuff but out in the "real world", we sorta see how things really are. as big and popular as blu-ray is now, there are still people who dont grasp the concept that a dvd player will not play those. if they cant grasp that, streaming is way over their heads.

and of course the biggest hurdle as the writer said is bandwith and everything related to it. more and more countries are creating caps so they are restricting it even more so streaming can't grow as well as it might if there wasnt such a limit. i'm in canada and the whole cap thing is pretty new, its only a few years ago where we were limitless...now all the major companies have imposed a capping system. i'm not affect as i've never been a huge downloader of things but thats the main reason i only watch SD when using netflix or the PSN store.

Even if streaming becomes the main source of home entertainment, I don't think it will kill physical media. It may turn physical media into the next Laser Disc in regards of how much market it covers but it will be there. Besides, being one of the few who owned a Laser Disc player and movies was quite an awesome experience when everyone else had bare bones VHS tapes.

Interesting article ... another thing that I always considered as a "con" with anything not physical (which would include digital downloads and streaming) is resell value. If you buy a physical disc of something and you need to make some quick cash or want to upgrade it to a new release (super special edition director's extended cuts, etc.), you can always resell your current disc. Not so with a digital downloads and, of course, streaming. Once you buy something that way, it pretty much loses all it's monetary value.

I really wish we could live in a world where both formats could co-exist without one trying to wipe the other out. I have Netflix and it is great for TV shows (I wouldn't have caught up with Breaking Bad otherwise) but I love owning a library of films on my shelves. I love going into stores like HMV and browsing in hope of finding some unknown gem buried amidst all the other DVDs and BluRays.

And finally, as you put it, BluRay offers better picture and sound as well as extra material that Netflix doesn't carry.